Utah to Abolish Internet Porn?

Open Conversation discussion on Utah to Abolish Internet Porn?, within the General Discussion; Hopefully none of you live in Utah...
The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require ...

The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also target e-mail providers and search engines.

Late Wednesday night, the Utah Senate approved controversial legislation that would create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material found to be "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.

A spokesman for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman said his aides would need to review the final version. "We have until March 22 to figure out what to do," spokeswoman Tammy Kikuchi said Thursday.

Technology companies had opposed the bill (click here for PDF), saying it is constitutionally suspect and is worded so vaguely that its full impact is still unclear.

"I'd be shocked if the governor did not sign this bill," said Markham Erickson, director of federal policy for lobbying group NetCoalition. "But I'm quite certain there will be a constitutional challenge." NetCoalition members include Google, Yahoo, and News.com publisher CNET Networks.

Supporters of the Utah bill, such as advocacy group Citizens Against Pornography, had pressed for the measure as a way to give parents more control of their home Internet connections.

Opponents, though, worry that the legislation could go far beyond just broadband and dial-up providers. "Does this cover only major Internet providers, or are they talking about the local coffee shop that offers Wi-Fi?" asked Kate Dean, manager of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C.

The measure, S.B.260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." A service provider is defined as any person or company who "provides an Internet access service to a consumer."

Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that hosts material deemed harmful to minors by the Utah attorney general must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.

A letter that NetCoalition sent to the state Senate earlier this week said the wording is so vague it could affect search engines, e-mail providers and Web hosting companies. "A search engine that links to a Web site in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the Web site," the letter said.

Internet censorship has already been implemented in many countries across the globe. Saudi Arabia for instance, all pornographic sites are banned. China, searches are filtered; for instance you would not be able to run a search in China for “Tibet”; there will be no results. The government has control on what civilians can or can not see.

People will still easily be able to download pornographic material, it is virtually impossible to have complete control, through torrents and P2P sharing it will be hard to restrict porn. Phew

slayer of souls's Sig:

"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains " Rousseau

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

While that may be true X, I shouldn't have others control what I access on the internet. Once I have kids, I will control the flow of material in my house with the aid of home blocking types of technology.

GuardDog's Sig:

Stats: 340y/o, 7'5", 2250lbs, 4% bf, meso-endomorph. Working out and taking supps since the dawn of time.

Disclaimer: I am not real. I am a player on a virtual world rotating through cyberspace. Any information I give is based off of science fiction and not meant to be taken literally. I do not know anyone that uses, condones the use, or knows where to get anything against the laws of our governments.

While that may be true X, I shouldn't have others control what I access on the internet. Once I have kids, I will control the flow of material in my house with the aid of home blocking types of technology.

I guess that's were the rub is. In this case you have a majority of people in this state who have or are pushing there government to block this kind of stuff in their state. In a democratic government if that's what the majority wants then more power to them. However there is a fine line between what government should be involved in and what they should not. We see that with baseball and steroid or the Terry Schivo case. Personally since part of what I do is help wrecked lives/families mostly steming from pornography I have yet to see anything positive ever to come from it. I could go off on a tanget of all the negative but I don't see the point.

I can see mixed emotions on this, pros in regulation, there is a lot of smut/stupid things on the net. I dont think it can be a regulated entity or whatever it is because it is open space.
Anyone can put anything on the net. There are a lot of areas to sift through while trying to find any sources of truth.

There was an article in a mag maybe this month or recently on Porn, how it is bad for you. It was in either mens fitness, maxim, stuff, playboy, somehting.

If you look up porn, think of the time you waste browsing, checking out ladies, midgets, whatever you like.... That is wasted time....

If I didnt work at customer service, and be at a computer all day. I would not use the net nearly as much. It can be a wast of time all too often.

this whole thing is the conservative right-wing religious fanatics trying to "save" the rest of us from ourselves. they need to save themselves before i bust some skulls for intruding on my rights to see boobies on the internet